Tech Insider					     Technology and Trends


			      USENET Archives

Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!
news.dell.com!tadpole.com!uunet!heifetz.msen.com!zib-berlin.de!fauern!
winx03!wpax08.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de!cip574
From: cip...@wpax01.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de (Frank Hofmann)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x.i386unix
Subject: New Motif lib's for use with XFree 3.1 ?
Date: 7 Oct 1994 15:17:07 GMT
Organization: University of Wuerzburg, Germany
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <373opj$2nt@winx03.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de>
References: <hastyCx4Du2.Ep6@netcom.com> <36rodq$cgl@tartan.metrolink.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: wpax08.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]

I knowe you'r not the correct one (are you ?), but my mailer tells me
'metrolink.com: Host unknown', so I think you might tell me (or forward
this to someone who can).
I've got Metrolink Motif 1.2.3 for Linux. It relies on the old shared libs,
so I cannot use X11R6 features in my Motif programs. I have to link them
with the old ones. So do you know if Metrolink is planning an upgrade ?

thanks, and best regards.

Frank

Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!pipex!uunet!munnari.oz.au!
newshost.anu.edu.au!newsmaster
From: Rajesh Raj <rxr401@huxley>
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x.i386unix,comp.windows.x.motif
Subject: Re: New Motif lib's for use with XFree 3.1 ?
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 1994 13:25:21 +1000 (EST)
Organization: Australian National University
Lines: 22
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.90.941008125857.26941A-100000@huxley>
References: <hastyCx4Du2.Ep6@netcom.com> <36rodq$cgl@tartan.metrolink.com> 
<373opj$2nt@winx03.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 150.203.2.12
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
In-Reply-To: <373opj$2nt@winx03.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de> 



On 7 Oct 1994, Frank Hofmann wrote:

> I've got Metrolink Motif 1.2.3 for Linux. It relies on the old shared libs,
> so I cannot use X11R6 features in my Motif programs. I have to link them
> with the old ones. So do you know if Metrolink is planning an upgrade ?
> 

I was in contact with t...@metrolink.com. They have no plan to recompile 
Linux Motif 1.2.4 with X11R6 libraries. The tech guy advised me to use the 
old X11R5 libraries.

As I have no plan to keep old libraries taking the disk-space, I removed 
motif from the disk altogether. Would somebody give me $100 for this 
package ?

Raj

Rajesh....@anu.edu.au

Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!
eehpx12!jr7877
From: jr7877@eehpx12 (Jason V Robertson)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x.i386unix,comp.windows.x.motif
Subject: Re: New Motif lib's for use with XFree 3.1 ?
Date: 8 Oct 1994 03:49:32 GMT
Organization: UIUC Engineering Workstation Labs
Lines: 28
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <3754sc$1nc@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
References: <36rodq$cgl@tartan.metrolink.com> 
<373opj$2nt@winx03.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de> 
<Pine.SUN.3.90.941008125857.26941A-100000@huxley>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eehpx12.cen.uiuc.edu

In article <Pine.SUN.3.90.941008125857.26941A-100000@huxley> Rajesh Raj 
<rxr401@huxley> writes:
>
>
>On 7 Oct 1994, Frank Hofmann wrote:
>
>> I've got Metrolink Motif 1.2.3 for Linux. It relies on the old shared libs,
>> so I cannot use X11R6 features in my Motif programs. I have to link them
>> with the old ones. So do you know if Metrolink is planning an upgrade ?
>> 
>
>I was in contact with t...@metrolink.com. They have no plan to recompile 
>Linux Motif 1.2.4 with X11R6 libraries. The tech guy advised me to use the 
>old X11R5 libraries.
>
>As I have no plan to keep old libraries taking the disk-space, I removed 
>motif from the disk altogether. Would somebody give me $100 for this 
>package ?

Yeah.  That's just plain bad.  It would take them what, maybe a few days to
recompile it and make sure everything works right?  I know _I'd_ never buy
something from a company with a response like this.

I mean, they could have at least *lied* to you and said "Yeah, soon..". :)
-- 
Email: jrobe...@uiuc.edu
Ph or finger jrobe...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu for PGP public key.
(Like I actually need one).
Warning: This is the official "I'm drunk" sig.

Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!
sgiblab!sti.com!barrnet.net!freya.yggdrasil.com!adam
From: a...@yggdrasil.com (Adam J. Richter)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x.i386unix,comp.os.linux.development
Subject: Re: New Motif lib's for use with XFree 3.1 ?
Date: 8 Oct 1994 00:08:57 GMT
Organization: Yggdrasil Computing, Incorporated
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <374nup$aap@freya.yggdrasil.com>
References: <hastyCx4Du2.Ep6@netcom.com> <36rodq$cgl@tartan.metrolink.com> 
<373opj$2nt@winx03.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: adam.barrnet.net

In article <373opj$...@winx03.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de>,
Frank Hofmann <cip...@wpax01.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de> wrote:
>I knowe you'r not the correct one (are you ?), but my mailer tells me
>'metrolink.com: Host unknown', so I think you might tell me (or forward
>this to someone who can).
>I've got Metrolink Motif 1.2.3 for Linux. It relies on the old shared libs,
>so I cannot use X11R6 features in my Motif programs. I have to link them
>with the old ones. So do you know if Metrolink is planning an upgrade ?
>
>thanks, and best regards.
>
>Frank

	I'm kind of curious why XFree86 decided to use an incompatible
major version number for shared libraries under Linux, requiring all
programs that were linked against X11R5 to be rebuilt.  We had an X11R6
beta release that used a downward compatible version version number for
its shared libraries and seemed to work fine with the R5 binaries that
we tried.  That release, including the jump files, was FTPable from
ftp.yggdrasil.com:pub/software_dist/X11R6-pl3.beta1/, and I know
that XFree86 was aware of the release.  Nevertheless, I'm glad
that XFree86 finally released 3.1.

-- 
Adam J. Richter				  Yggdrasil Computing, Incorporated
(408) 261-6630				  "Free Software For The Rest of Us."

Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!tequesta.gate.net!metrolink.com!metro!
not-for-mail
From: cr...@metrolink.com (Craig Groeschel)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x.i386unix,comp.os.linux.development
Subject: Re: New Motif lib's for use with XFree 3.1 ?
Date: 10 Oct 1994 14:34:51 -0400
Organization: Metro Link, Inc., Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <37c1gb$lo@tartan.metrolink.com>
References: <hastyCx4Du2.Ep6@netcom.com> <36rodq$cgl@tartan.metrolink.com> 
<373opj$2nt@winx03.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de> <374nup$aap@freya.yggdrasil.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tartan.metrolink.com

In article <374nup$...@freya.yggdrasil.com>,
Adam J. Richter <a...@yggdrasil.com> wrote:
>We had an X11R6
>beta release that used a downward compatible version version number for
>its shared libraries and seemed to work fine with the R5 binaries that
>we tried.

"Seemed to work fine" or "was binary compatible"?  Big difference.

I don't know if it was decided to standardize on major number 6
for X11R6, or if the new libraries actually were not binary compatible.
I am curious to know.
-- 
Craig E. Groeschel  <cr...@metrolink.com>  Not speaking for my employer.
"Do not play this piece fast.  It is never right to play Ragtime fast." Joplin
GCS/E g+ s+/- au* v+ C+ P->+ L+++ U@ u+++ E---(+) N+ !W Y+ t++ b+ e- n++ h* f

Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!tequesta.gate.net!metrolink.com!metro!
not-for-mail
From: cr...@metrolink.com (Craig Groeschel)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x.i386unix,comp.windows.x.motif,comp.os.linux.admin
Subject: Re: New Motif lib's for use with XFree 3.1 ?
Date: 10 Oct 1994 15:20:01 -0400
Organization: Metro Link, Inc., Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
Lines: 76
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <37c451$og@tartan.metrolink.com>
References: <hastyCx4Du2.Ep6@netcom.com> <36rodq$cgl@tartan.metrolink.com> 
<373opj$2nt@winx03.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de> 
<Pine.SUN.3.90.941008125857.26941A-100000@huxley>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tartan.metrolink.com

This article is Linux-specific and Metro Link Motif-specific.
Please hit n now if you're not interested.
  
In article <Pine.SUN.3.90.941008125857.26941A-100000@huxley>,
Rajesh Raj  <rxr401@huxley> wrote:
>I was in contact with t...@metrolink.com. They have no plan to recompile 
>Linux Motif 1.2.4 with X11R6 libraries. The tech guy advised me to use the 
>old X11R5 libraries.

That's an interesting spin you have chosen to put on things.
Yes, it's true we do not plan to update 1.2.x, but you left out why:

Motif 2.0 is out.  We are working on porting Motif 2.0 to Linux.

In the meantime, allow me to explain how to make our Linux Motif work
with XFree86-3.1.
Yes, Virginia, Motif 1.2.x does work with X11R6, but we have
to rely on the magic of shared libraries and dynamic linking.


The short answer:

Install the libX11 and libXt of XFree86-2.1, and Motif will work.
(Also be sure /usr/X386/lib is in your /etc/ld.so.conf, and run ldconfig.)
The filename is XF86-2.1-lib.tar.gz, and it is available from
your friendly neighborhood Linux archive.  Use archie to find one near you.


The long answer:

Motif applications compiled with 1.2.4 WILL WORK with XFree86-3.1 (X11R6).
However, Motif 1.2.4 is based on X11R5, and it depends on
R5's libX11 and libXt.  So all you need to do is keep those libraries
(libX11 and libXt) from XFree86-2.1 installed on your system.
Through the magic of dynamic linking, the proper libraries will be
linked in.

I agree it would be nice if Motif would work seamlessly with R6,
but this is the way things are:

  XFree86-2.1 is based on X11R5.
  XFree86-3.1 is based on X11R6.
          X11R5 != X11R6
Motif 1.2.4 is      based on X11R5.
Motif 2.0   is      based on X11R5.
Motif 2.1   will be based on X11R6. (?)

Linux's shared dynamic linker (ld.so) provides a [IMHO solution] work-around,
and in fact the whole concept of major versions of shared libraries
was designed exactly for a situation like this.


>As I have no plan to keep old libraries taking the disk-space, I removed 
>motif from the disk altogether. Would somebody give me $100 for this 
>package ?

This sounds to me like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Let's see how much space the old libraries actually take up:

/usr/X386/lib/libX11.sa         157756
/usr/X386/lib/libXt.sa           80440
/usr/X386/lib/libX11.so.3.1.0   320516
/usr/X386/lib/libXt.so.3.1.0    291844

For a total of 850556 bytes.  Plus a couple of symbolic links
that ldconfig(8) will make.  I don't know...that doesn't seem like
a whole lot of space to me, but disk space is a scarce resource,
and everyone has to set his own priorities.

Bottom line is that we support our customers, and we are working on
providing the latest technology both in X and Motif.
Pay no attention to the boilerplate:  I am speaking for Metro Link this time.
-- 
Craig E. Groeschel  <cr...@metrolink.com>  Not speaking for my employer.
"Do not play this piece fast.  It is never right to play Ragtime fast." Joplin
GCS/E g+ s+/- au* v+ C+ P->+ L+++ U@ u+++ E---(+) N+ !W Y+ t++ b+ e- n++ h* f

Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!tequesta.gate.net!metrolink.com!metro!not-for-mail
From: cr...@metrolink.com (Craig Groeschel)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x.i386unix,comp.windows.x.motif
Subject: Re: New Motif lib's for use with XFree 3.1 ?
Date: 10 Oct 1994 21:06:10 -0400
Organization: Metro Link, Inc., Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
Lines: 54
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <37coe2$us@tartan.metrolink.com>
References: <36rodq$cgl@tartan.metrolink.com> 
<373opj$2nt@winx03.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de> 
<Pine.SUN.3.90.941008125857.26941A-100000@huxley> <3754sc$1nc@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tartan.metrolink.com

It's hard to take an article like this seriously.
I keep telling myself, "It's just flame bait,"
but there are some valid questions which I'll address.

In article <3754sc$...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
Jason V Robertson <jr7877@eehpx12> wrote:
>Yeah.  That's just plain bad.  It would take them what, maybe a few days to
>recompile it and make sure everything works right?

Sigh.  There is more to creating a distributable, shippable product
than recompiling everything.  Motif for Linux is not something hacked
together over the weekend, and there's a lot more to it than compiled
code.  (I'm not going to go into details here, tell sa...@metrolink.com
"send linux" for more info.)

Would it take you "maybe a few days" to make Motif 1.2.4 (or, at your
option, 2.0.  You did know 2.0 was out, right?) binary compatible
with R5 and R6?  (Don't forget the R5 users.  They may not like the
idea of an involuntary upgrade.)  Are you sure?  Don't forget...

      XFree86-2.1 is based on X11R5.
      XFree86-3.1 is based on X11R6.
              X11R5 != X11R6
      Motif 1.2.4 is based on X11R5.
      Motif 2.0   is based on X11R5.

Undaunted?  Well, don't answer yet, because you also have to do...
version control, configuration control, documentation, installation
instructions, testing, packaging, labelling, advertising, order taking,
packing, shipping, billing, and tech support.

(Hey kids, isn't the commercial software business fun???)

No sweat, you say?  Cool.  We're hiring.  You should send in a resume.

>I know _I'd_ never buy something from a company with a response like this.

I don't think the previous poster gave you the whole story.

>I mean, they could have at least *lied* to you and said "Yeah, soon..". :)

I beg your pardon.

>-- 
>Email: jrobe...@uiuc.edu
>Ph or finger jrobe...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu for PGP public key.
>(Like I actually need one).
>Warning: This is the official "I'm drunk" sig.

I guess so.
-- 
Craig E. Groeschel  <cr...@metrolink.com>  Not speaking for my employer.
"Do not play this piece fast.  It is never right to play Ragtime fast." Joplin
GCS/E g+ s+/- au* v+ C+ P->+ L+++ U@ u+++ E---(+) N+ !W Y+ t++ b+ e- n++ h* f

Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!
MathWorks.Com!solaris.cc.vt.edu!uunet!tandem!barrnet.net!freya.yggdrasil.com!adam
From: a...@yggdrasil.com (Adam J. Richter)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x.i386unix,comp.os.linux.development
Subject: Re: New Motif lib's for use with XFree 3.1 ?
Date: 12 Oct 1994 19:47:43 GMT
Organization: Yggdrasil Computing, Incorporated
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <37hegv$4ql@freya.yggdrasil.com>
References: <hastyCx4Du2.Ep6@netcom.com> 
<373opj$2nt@winx03.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de> 
<374nup$aap@freya.yggdrasil.com> <37c1gb$lo@tartan.metrolink.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: adam.barrnet.net

In article <37c1gb...@tartan.metrolink.com>,
Craig Groeschel <cr...@metrolink.com> wrote:
>In article <374nup$...@freya.yggdrasil.com>,
>Adam J. Richter <a...@yggdrasil.com> wrote:
>>We had an X11R6
>>beta release that used a downward compatible version version number for
>>its shared libraries and seemed to work fine with the R5 binaries that
>>we tried.
>
>"Seemed to work fine" or "was binary compatible"?  Big difference.

	Any program that could statically link against both R5 and R6
would run perfectly with our R6 shared libraries, even if the binary
had been compiled against the R5 stubs.  In addition, programs that
used functions that had been renamed in R6 would also work.  (The
functions that the X consortium renamed were also renamed in our
jump files.)

	It is true that some obscure R5 calls do not exist in R6,
but that would only effect programs that would not successfully
relink against R6 anyhow.  If a program called one of these deleted
entries, the undefined routine acted as a no-op.  Deleting jump table
entries from new versions of shared libraries is nothing new.  For
example, there are now numerous __DUMMY__ entries in jump.vars for the
Linux C library.

	A program that referenced a routine that was no longer
supported by X11R6 would fail to relink, so it was quite simple for a
software developer to test if his or her program was effected.  In
other words, everything that could work would work.

	For whatever reason, XFree86 chose to ignore our jump tables
(which were publicly announced and anonymously FTPable), and instead
decided to build incompatible jump tables.  Perhaps XFree86 had some
technical reason for doing this, but I have yet to hear one.  If
XFree86 had had a more open beta testing process, this problem would
have been exposed and fixed long ago.

	There must be at least a couple of thousand people out there
using Motif (Metrolink, SWiM, X-Inside, etc.) right now.  I hope that
most of these people are on the internet, because the media costs
alone of sending all of these people new floppy sets would be about
ten thousand dollars, and that money has to come from somewhere.
There are problems on the business Motif packages will have to have
twice as much media or stores will have to stock two different
versions of Motif packages.  And that's only after the new libraries
become available.  In the meantime, in order to use the Motif shared
libraries, you have to keep the R5 shared libraries around, and you
may have other problems in recompiling, since the "-lX11" in a "-lXm
-lXt -lX11" will bring in the R6 libraries, and you'll probably have
the R6 #include files already installed too.

	I've already seen one poster on this newsgroup who was angry
at his Motif vendor and wanted to sell his copy of Motif.  That blame
is misplaced.  What is really needed is a statement from XFree86
explaining what technical benefits they saw that outweighed the
substantial costs of unnecessarily breaking binary compatability.

-- 
Adam J. Richter				  Yggdrasil Computing, Incorporated
(408) 261-6630				  "Free Software For The Rest of Us."

Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!
MathWorks.Com!solaris.cc.vt.edu!uunet!tandem!barrnet.net!freya.yggdrasil.com!adam
From: a...@yggdrasil.com (Adam J. Richter)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x.i386unix,comp.os.linux.development
Subject: Re: New Motif lib's for use with XFree 3.1 ?
Date: 12 Oct 1994 19:55:22 GMT
Organization: Yggdrasil Computing, Incorporated
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <37heva$4rg@freya.yggdrasil.com>
References: <hastyCx4Du2.Ep6@netcom.com> <374nup$aap@freya.yggdrasil.com> 
<37c1gb$lo@tartan.metrolink.com> <37hegv$4ql@freya.yggdrasil.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: adam.barrnet.net

I wrote:
>	For whatever reason, XFree86 chose to ignore our jump tables
>(which were publicly announced and anonymously FTPable), and instead
>decided to build incompatible jump tables.  Perhaps XFree86 had some
>technical reason for doing this, but I have yet to hear one.

I meant to say:

	"Perhaps XFree86 had some good technical reason for doing
this [...]"                       ^^^^


	I did get a message from one XFree86 memeber who didn't
do the linux shared library support who said that his recoolection was
that it was because "there were no guarantees about binary
compatability."

-- 
Adam J. Richter				  Yggdrasil Computing, Incorporated
(408) 261-6630				  "Free Software For The Rest of Us."

Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!
sgiblab!munnari.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!huxley!rxr401
From: Rajesh Raj <rxr401@huxley>
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x.i386unix,comp.windows.x.motif,comp.os.linux.admin
Subject: Re: New Motif lib's for use with XFree 3.1 ?
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 16:37:39 +1000
Organization: Australian National University
Lines: 121
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.941013153628.7105A-100000@huxley>
References: <hastyCx4Du2.Ep6@netcom.com> <36rodq$cgl@tartan.metrolink.com> 
<373opj$2nt@winx03.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de> 
<Pine.SUN.3.90.941008125857.26941A-100000@huxley> <37c451$og@tartan.metrolink.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 150.203.2.12
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
In-Reply-To: <37c451$og@tartan.metrolink.com> 



On 10 Oct 1994, Craig Groeschel wrote:

> This article is Linux-specific and Metro Link Motif-specific.
> Please hit n now if you're not interested.
>   
> In article <Pine.SUN.3.90.941008125857.26941A-100000@huxley>,
> Rajesh Raj  <rxr401@huxley> wrote:
> >I was in contact with t...@metrolink.com. They have no plan to recompile 
> >Linux Motif 1.2.4 with X11R6 libraries. The tech guy advised me to use the 
> >old X11R5 libraries.
> 
> That's an interesting spin you have chosen to put on things.
> Yes, it's true we do not plan to update 1.2.x, but you left out why:
> 
> Motif 2.0 is out.  We are working on porting Motif 2.0 to Linux.

I am not trying to put "spin" on things. I posted what I gathered from 
your response. Yes, Motif 2.0 is out, and it is known that Motif-vendors 
are working on it. You are not revealing anything that was not known 30 
days ago when I bought Motif for Linux from you.

Now, as you have chosen to speak for Metrolink would you like to clarify 
a few things ?

	1.When do you propose to make Motif 2.0 for Linux available ? How 
	  much would it cost me to upgrade ? [You did not reply to the 
	  e-mail in which I had asked these questions.]

	2.Why is it that none of your advertisements (e.g., on tsx-11.mit.edu)
	  indicate that Motif 1.2.4 would *only* run with X11R5 libraries ? 
	  [Most companies mention the hardware/software requirements in their
	  products.]

My decision to buy Metrolik Motif was based on your old ad (replaced on 
11 Oct.) on tsx-11.mit.edu, in which future updates were mentioned. At 
the time of purchase, I was not told that Metrolink "does not plan to 
update 1.2.4" although all of us knew that XFree86 3.1 was about to be 
released and XFree86 3.0 (X11R6) was available. What if I was running 
XFree86 3.0 ?

> In the meantime, allow me to explain how to make our Linux Motif work
> with XFree86-3.1.
> Yes, Virginia, Motif 1.2.x does work with X11R6, but we have
> to rely on the magic of shared libraries and dynamic linking.

People know that R4 libraries would be needed to compile/run R4 apps 
under X11R5. I am sure that there are many people running old versions of 
Motif with XFree86 3.1.
 
> 
> The short answer:
> 
> Install the libX11 and libXt of XFree86-2.1, and Motif will work.
> (Also be sure /usr/X386/lib is in your /etc/ld.so.conf, and run ldconfig.)
> The filename is XF86-2.1-lib.tar.gz, and it is available from
> your friendly neighborhood Linux archive.  Use archie to find one near you.
> 

Again, thanks for the advice. What about reshuffling config (templates, cf, 
rules) files and includes ? Do you imply that Motif apps can be compiled 
with R6 includes and templates without any problem ? My experience 
suggests otherwise.

> The long answer:
> 
> Motif applications compiled with 1.2.4 WILL WORK with XFree86-3.1 (X11R6).
> However, Motif 1.2.4 is based on X11R5, and it depends on
> R5's libX11 and libXt.  So all you need to do is keep those libraries
> (libX11 and libXt) from XFree86-2.1 installed on your system.
> Through the magic of dynamic linking, the proper libraries will be
> linked in.
> 
> I agree it would be nice if Motif would work seamlessly with R6,
> but this is the way things are:
> 
>   XFree86-2.1 is based on X11R5.
>   XFree86-3.1 is based on X11R6.
>           X11R5 != X11R6
> Motif 1.2.4 is      based on X11R5.
> Motif 2.0   is      based on X11R5.
> Motif 2.1   will be based on X11R6. (?)
> 

Does it mean that Motif 2.0 would also need X11R5 libraries ? 

> >As I have no plan to keep old libraries taking the disk-space, I removed 
> >motif from the disk altogether. Would somebody give me $100 for this 
> >package ?
> 
> This sounds to me like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
> Let's see how much space the old libraries actually take up:
> 
>  [list of libraries deleted]

The issue is not inadequate disk-space or old libraries. It is fine if 
the author of a freeware does not specify the requirements of running the 
program, but I have not known a commercial software that would not 
specify the software/hardware requirements on its package.

> Bottom line is that we support our customers, and we are working on
> providing the latest technology both in X and Motif.
> Pay no attention to the boilerplate:  I am speaking for Metro Link this time.

Well, in that case, reconsider the decision of not updating Motif 1.2.4. 
You would be doing us a great favour. What do you think your potential 
customers would feel, when they realise that the package they are 
going to buy is not going to work on their existing (X11R6) system 
without old libraries ?

Also, what is your policy regarding those people who have bought or are 
going to buy Motif 1.2.4 after X11R6 release ? Are they going to pay the 
full price for updating to Motif 2.0 ?


Raj


rxr...@huxley.anu.edu.au

Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!
lerc.nasa.gov!news.larc.nasa.gov!news!jcburt
From: jcb...@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov (John Burton)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x.i386unix,comp.windows.x.motif,comp.os.linux.admin
Subject: Re: New Motif lib's for use with XFree 3.1 ?
Date: 13 Oct 1994 13:09:57 GMT
Organization: G & A Technical Software, Inc.
Lines: 81
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <JCBURT.94Oct13090957@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov>
References: <hastyCx4Du2.Ep6@netcom.com> <36rodq$cgl@tartan.metrolink.com>
	<373opj$2nt@winx03.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de>
	<Pine.SUN.3.90.941008125857.26941A-100000@huxley>
	<37c451$og@tartan.metrolink.com>
	<Pine.SUN.3.91.941013153628.7105A-100000@huxley>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov
In-reply-to: Rajesh Raj's message of Thu, 13 Oct 1994 16:37:39 +1000

In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.941013153628.7105A-100000@huxley> Rajesh Raj 
<rxr401@huxley> writes:
   On 10 Oct 1994, Craig Groeschel wrote:
   > In article <Pine.SUN.3.90.941008125857.26941A-100000@huxley>,
   > Rajesh Raj  <rxr401@huxley> wrote:
   > >I was in contact with t...@metrolink.com. They have no plan to recompile 
   > >Linux Motif 1.2.4 with X11R6 libraries. The tech guy advised me to use the 
   > >old X11R5 libraries.
   > 
   > That's an interesting spin you have chosen to put on things.
   > Yes, it's true we do not plan to update 1.2.x, but you left out why:
   > 
   > Motif 2.0 is out.  We are working on porting Motif 2.0 to Linux.

   I am not trying to put "spin" on things. I posted what I gathered from 
   your response. Yes, Motif 2.0 is out, and it is known that Motif-vendors 
   are working on it. You are not revealing anything that was not known 30 
   days ago when I bought Motif for Linux from you.

   Now, as you have chosen to speak for Metrolink would you like to clarify 
   a few things ?

	   1.When do you propose to make Motif 2.0 for Linux available ? How 
	     much would it cost me to upgrade ? [You did not reply to the 
	     e-mail in which I had asked these questions.]

	   2.Why is it that none of your advertisements (e.g., on tsx-11.mit.edu)
	     indicate that Motif 1.2.4 would *only* run with X11R5 libraries ? 
	     [Most companies mention the hardware/software requirements in their
	     products.]

You know, this is an interesting point of view...A *new* product comes
out (XFree86 3.1) that is *not* compatible with an existing product
(Motif), yet instead of asking why the *new* product is not compatible
with the *existing* product, you choose to question *why* the existing
product is not immediately made compatible with the new product...the
logic is a bit skewed here...

Personally, I think the XFree folks should have consulted more with
the Motif folks *before* releasing their product so that most of these
incompatibility issues could be ironed out...

Also, I noticed a little disclaimer with the XFree stuff, something to
the effect that your X11R5 clients would not work properly with
XFree_3.1, so apparently this "incompatibility" is not just limited to
Motif. I *hope* there are some very good reasons for this apparent
gratuitous incompatibility, because I'd sure hate to have to recompile
or replace all or even most of my x-clients...


[...stuff deleted...]

   The issue is not inadequate disk-space or old libraries. It is fine if 
   the author of a freeware does not specify the requirements of running the 
   program, but I have not known a commercial software that would not 
   specify the software/hardware requirements on its package.

Ummm...perhaps because the XFree folks held the testing so close to
their chests, the "commercial" software vendors were unaware of this
incompatibility till sometime shortly after the "freeware" was released?

Also, it is NOT "okay" for the author of a freeware program to not
specify the requirements of running the program, especially "freeware"
that is being used as the basis for many business applications...

Hopefully next time the XFree folks will be more open about their
testing, and this sort of problem will be eliminated long before a
public release...try looking at the development/testing activities for
the Linux system...*very* open policy, and from what I've seen, the
software is of *very* high quality...perhaps the XFree folk will take
note of that ?

John


--
--
John Burton                      
jcb...@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov     G & A Technical Software, Inc.
jcb...@gats486.larc.nasa.gov     28 Research Dr. Hampton, Va. 23666
(804) 865-7491 (voice)           (804) 865-1021 (fax)

Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!tequesta.gate.net!metrolink.com!metro!not-for-mail
From: cr...@metrolink.com (Craig Groeschel)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x.i386unix,comp.windows.x.motif,comp.os.linux.admin
Subject: Re: New Motif lib's for use with XFree 3.1 ?
Date: 14 Oct 1994 19:03:11 -0400
Organization: Metro Link, Inc., Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
Lines: 40
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <37n2nf$aob@tartan.metrolink.com>
References: <hastyCx4Du2.Ep6@netcom.com> <37c451$og@tartan.metrolink.com> 
<Pine.SUN.3.91.941013153628.7105A-100000@huxley> 
<JCBURT.94Oct13090957@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tartan.metrolink.com

Sorry for the massive crosspost.  Please skip to the appropriate newsgroup.

In article <JCBURT.94Oct13090...@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov>,
John Burton <jcb...@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>Personally, I think the XFree folks should have consulted more with
>the Motif folks *before* releasing their product so that most of these
>incompatibility issues could be ironed out...

comp.windows.x.i386unix:
I was wondering if I should stay on the beta team any longer, since
I have been too busy to send in any reports on XFree86.  (Yes, I am
still on the beta team.  You heard it here first.)  Guess I will.

But I don't think it's a beta issue or an XFree86 issue at all.
IMHO, it's pointless to point fingers.

comp.windows.x.motif:
The simple fact is that X and Motif are on different development cycles.
There are going to be incompatibilities between the two products,
and there are features in the newer one (X) that the older one (Motif)
cannot exploit.

For developing and compiling new applications, Motif 1.2.4 simply was
not designed to work in an R6 environment.  (I keep thinking of making
water run uphill.)  You cannot make Motif 1.2.4 use features of X11R6
it was not designed to use.  If you could, it probably would not be
Motif 1.2.4 any longer.

comp.os.linux.admin:
Whether XFree86-3.1's X libraries should or should not be compatible
with 2.1's, I don't know.  I've heard speculations both ways.  What I do
know is that the men doing the Linux shared X libraries have been doing
them for longer than a lot of us have been using Linux, so they should
know a thing or two about Linux shared libraries.  Plus, the XC bumped
the major version numbers.  I think they're trying to tell us something.
(But who knows, maybe not.  Our 1.2.3 was not compatible with our 1.2.2. :-( )
-- 
Craig E. Groeschel  <cr...@metrolink.com>  Not speaking for my employer.
"Do not play this piece fast.  It is never right to play Ragtime fast." Joplin
GCS/E g+ s+/- au* v+ C+ P->+ L+++ U@ u+++ E---(+) N+ !W Y+ t++ b+ e- n++ h* f

Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!
gatekeeper.us.oracle.com!barrnet.net!freya.yggdrasil.com!adam
From: a...@yggdrasil.com (Adam J. Richter)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x.i386unix,comp.windows.x.motif,comp.os.linux.admin
Subject: Re: New Motif lib's for use with XFree 3.1 ?
Date: 16 Oct 1994 23:21:19 GMT
Organization: Yggdrasil Computing, Incorporated
Lines: 45
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <37schf$f0e@freya.yggdrasil.com>
References: <hastyCx4Du2.Ep6@netcom.com> 
<Pine.SUN.3.91.941013153628.7105A-100000@huxley> 
<JCBURT.94Oct13090957@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov> <37n2nf$aob@tartan.metrolink.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: adam.barrnet.net

In article <37n2nf$...@tartan.metrolink.com>,
Craig Groeschel <cr...@metrolink.com> wrote:
>comp.windows.x.motif:
>The simple fact is that X and Motif are on different development cycles.
>There are going to be incompatibilities between the two products,
>and there are features in the newer one (X) that the older one (Motif)
>cannot exploit.

	That is no excuse cause Motif or other applications to be
unable to work *at all* with R6 shared libaries.  When Linux becomes
the most widely used unix variant, do you think it will be acceptable
for all binaries to *unnecessarily* break when a new version of a
library comes out?

>For developing and compiling new applications, Motif 1.2.4 simply was
>not designed to work in an R6 environment.  (I keep thinking of making
>water run uphill.)

	Could the author of the above statement please explain what
interface in R6 *breaks* Motif 1.2.4?  I would sincerely like to know.
We are not talking about using new R6 features, just continuing to run
existing applications.

>comp.os.linux.admin:
>Whether XFree86-3.1's X libraries should or should not be compatible
>with 2.1's, I don't know.  I've heard speculations both ways.  What I do
>know is that the men doing the Linux shared X libraries have been doing
>them for longer than a lot of us have been using Linux, so they should
>know a thing or two about Linux shared libraries.

	Then these people should state some good technical reasons for
their decision!

	Remember, we had an X11R6 distribution in
ftp.yggdrasil.com:pub/software_dist that ran binaries of R5 programs
that can successfully relink against R6 (we even adjusted the jump
tables to reflect procedures that had simply been renamed in R6).

	If XFree86 made their beta releases free and accessible to the
world (like new Linux kernels), the shared library problem would have
been detected and fixed long ago.  I also think that it would result
in more contribution and faster bug detection and bug fixing.
-- 
Adam J. Richter				  Yggdrasil Computing, Incorporated
(408) 261-6630				  "Free Software For The Rest of Us."

Newsgroups: comp.windows.x.i386unix,comp.windows.x.motif,comp.os.linux.admin
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!sun4nl!
sci.kun.nl!plm
From: p...@atcmp.nl (Peter Mutsaers)
Subject: Re: New Motif lib's for use with XFree 3.1 ?
In-Reply-To: dwex@aib.com's message of Mon, 17 Oct 1994 01:16:09 GMT
Message-ID: <PLM.94Oct17094004@nijmegen3.atcmp.nl>
X-Attribution: PLM
Lines: 29
Sender: n...@sci.kun.nl (News owner)
Nntp-Posting-Host: atcmpg.atcmp.kun.nl
Organization: AT Computing
References: <JCBURT.94Oct13090957@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov> 
<37n2nf$aob@tartan.metrolink.com>
<37schf$f0e@freya.yggdrasil.com> <CxsM6x.A45@aib.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 1994 07:41:22 GMT

>> On Mon, 17 Oct 1994 01:16:09 GMT, d...@aib.com (David E. Wexelblat) said:

  DEW> Since I don't run Linux, I can't comment on why the shared
  DEW> libraries were done this way.

  DEW> Except to point out that if you folks had SVR4-style shared
  DEW> libraries, you wouldn't have these problems.

Good news: Linux *has* SVR4-style shared libraries. If you want you
can use ELF object code format with the latest kernels and you can
build ELF binaries and also shared libraries thanks to the excellent
work of some people (H.J. Lu works on gcc, gas and binutils to do
this). In fact, yesterday I built an ELF version of XFree 3.1 with
shared libraries (some other kind person posted a very small patch to
the XFree 3.1 source tree to make this a piece of cake).

To Adam Richter: nothing stops you to recompile XFree 3.1 yourself and
try to keep the version number of the shared libraries the same as the
old ones and then see what happens. But the current shared libraries
are difficult wrt to this, since all tables and global data must still
fit in the same amount of memory. Otherwise your code may be
compatible, but the shared library not because of changed
addresses. When ELF will become the standard object code format, in a
few months maybe, such problems will be of the past.
-- 
Peter Mutsaers                  |  AT Computing bv,  P.O. Box 1428,
p...@atcmp.nl                    |  6501 BK  Nijmegen, The Netherlands
tel. work: +31 (0)80 527248     |
tel. home: +31 (0)3405 71093    |  "... En..., doet ie het al?"

Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!
gatekeeper.us.oracle.com!barrnet.net!freya.yggdrasil.com!adam
From: adam@adam (Adam J. Richter)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x.i386unix,comp.windows.x.motif,comp.os.linux.admin
Subject: Re: New Motif lib's for use with XFree 3.1 ?
Date: 17 Oct 1994 19:42:30 GMT
Organization: Yggdrasil Computing, Incorporated
Lines: 17
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <37uk36$4a@freya.yggdrasil.com>
References: <JCBURT.94Oct13090957@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov> 
<37schf$f0e@freya.yggdrasil.com> <CxsM6x.A45@aib.com> 
<PLM.94Oct17094004@nijmegen3.atcmp.nl>
NNTP-Posting-Host: adam.barrnet.net

In article <PLM.94Oct17094...@nijmegen3.atcmp.nl>,
Peter Mutsaers <p...@atcmp.nl> wrote:
>To Adam Richter: nothing stops you to recompile XFree 3.1 yourself and
>try to keep the version number [...]

	I know we can do this, but we want a concensus within the
Linux community to go one way or the other.  It would be better to
switch to XFree86's incompatable libraries than have half of the
Linux community using our R5-compatable binding's and half using
XFree86's R5-incompatable bindings.

	I agree that if we're going to make a change, it might be better
to go with ELF a month or two early than to switch twice.

-- 
Adam J. Richter				  Yggdrasil Computing, Incorporated
(408) 261-6630				  "Free Software For The Rest of Us."

Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.moneng.mei.com!
uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!taco.cc.ncsu.edu!jlnance
From: jlna...@eos.ncsu.edu (James Lewis Nance)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x.i386unix,comp.windows.x.motif,comp.os.linux.admin
Subject: Re: New Motif lib's for use with XFree 3.1 ?
Date: 18 Oct 1994 11:52:03 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Lines: 20
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <380ct3$a9q@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>
References: <JCBURT.94Oct13090957@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov> 
<37schf$f0e@freya.yggdrasil.com> <CxsM6x.A45@aib.com> 
<PLM.94Oct17094004@nijmegen3.atcmp.nl> <37uk36$4a@freya.yggdrasil.com>
Reply-To: jlna...@eos.ncsu.edu (James Lewis Nance)
NNTP-Posting-Host: c11074-401dan.ece.ncsu.edu
Originator: jlna...@kelley.ece.ncsu.edu


In article <37uk36...@freya.yggdrasil.com>, adam@adam (Adam J. Richter) writes:
> Path: taco.cc.ncsu.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!
gatekeeper.us.oracle.com!barrnet.net!freya.yggdrasil.com!adam
> From: adam@adam (Adam J. Richter)
> 	I know we can do this, but we want a concensus within the
> Linux community to go one way or the other.  It would be better to
> switch to XFree86's incompatable libraries than have half of the
> Linux community using our R5-compatable binding's and half using
> XFree86's R5-incompatable bindings.
> 
> 	I agree that if we're going to make a change, it might be better
> to go with ELF a month or two early than to switch twice.

I think this is an extreamly good point.  The ELF version of XFree86 has 
already been compiled by someone on the GCC channel.  I suspect that all the
new shared libs for linux will be ELF quite soon.  I think it would be bad
to have to have the R6 a.out shared libs laying around forever
simply because R6 came out a few months before ELF was ready.

Jim Nance

Newsgroups: comp.windows.x.i386unix,comp.windows.x.motif,comp.os.linux.admin
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uunet!virtech!dwex
From: d...@aib.com (David E. Wexelblat)
Subject: Re: New Motif lib's for use with XFree 3.1 ?
Message-ID: <CxsM6x.A45@aib.com>
Organization: AIB Software, Inc.
References: <JCBURT.94Oct13090957@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov> 
<37n2nf$aob@tartan.metrolink.com> <37schf$f0e@freya.yggdrasil.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 1994 01:16:09 GMT
Lines: 88

In article <37schf$...@freya.yggdrasil.com> a...@yggdrasil.com (Adam J. Richter) 
writes:
>In article <37n2nf$...@tartan.metrolink.com>,
>Craig Groeschel <cr...@metrolink.com> wrote:
>>comp.windows.x.motif:
>>The simple fact is that X and Motif are on different development cycles.
>>There are going to be incompatibilities between the two products,
>>and there are features in the newer one (X) that the older one (Motif)
>>cannot exploit.
>
>	That is no excuse cause Motif or other applications to be
>unable to work *at all* with R6 shared libaries.  When Linux becomes
>the most widely used unix variant, do you think it will be acceptable
>for all binaries to *unnecessarily* break when a new version of a
>library comes out?
>
>>For developing and compiling new applications, Motif 1.2.4 simply was
>>not designed to work in an R6 environment.  (I keep thinking of making
>>water run uphill.)
>
>	Could the author of the above statement please explain what
>interface in R6 *breaks* Motif 1.2.4?  I would sincerely like to know.
>We are not talking about using new R6 features, just continuing to run
>existing applications.
>
>>comp.os.linux.admin:
>>Whether XFree86-3.1's X libraries should or should not be compatible
>>with 2.1's, I don't know.  I've heard speculations both ways.  What I do
>>know is that the men doing the Linux shared X libraries have been doing
>>them for longer than a lot of us have been using Linux, so they should
>>know a thing or two about Linux shared libraries.
>
>	Then these people should state some good technical reasons for
>their decision!
>
>	Remember, we had an X11R6 distribution in
>ftp.yggdrasil.com:pub/software_dist that ran binaries of R5 programs
>that can successfully relink against R6 (we even adjusted the jump
>tables to reflect procedures that had simply been renamed in R6).
>
>	If XFree86 made their beta releases free and accessible to the
>world (like new Linux kernels), the shared library problem would have
>been detected and fixed long ago.  I also think that it would result
>in more contribution and faster bug detection and bug fixing.
>-- 
>Adam J. Richter				  Yggdrasil Computing, Incorporated
>(408) 261-6630				  "Free Software For The Rest of Us."

Richter, shut up.

I'm tired of listening to you.  You've been after us about how we do things
for the last 1.5 years or more.  We haven't changed our methods to suit you,
and we never will.  You've insulted us, cajoled us, tried to get people to
leave our team to work with you, and none of it has worked.  Get it through
your thick skull that XFree86 is not Linux, and never will be Linux.  We
do things OUR way, not YOUR way, and, for that matter, not Linus' way.

By our choice.

We've got 75-100 beta testers running Linux.  None of them reported these
problems.

Since I don't run Linux, I can't comment on why the shared libraries were
done this way.

Except to point out that if you folks had SVR4-style shared libraries, you
wouldn't have these problems.

I'll be damned if I'm going to put up with 10-100,000 newbies monkeying
around with software that could damage their hardware, when I know damn
well it isn't ready for them.  Others seem to be able to shed themselves
of that responsibility (yourself included - your R6 servers have bugs/hacks
known to damage hardware; these problems were documented long before you
released them).  We choose to not release software until we can be pretty
damn sure that it's not going to blow up someone's hardware.

You're free to try to displace The XFree86 Project, Inc as the preeminent 
supplier of free X software - if you can.


--
David Wexelblat <d...@aib.com>  (703) 430-9247 x301  Fax: (703) 450-4560
AIB Software Corporation, 46030 Manekin Plaza, Suite 160, Dulles, VA  20166

Mail regarding XFree86[TM] should be sent to <xfre...@xfree86.org>

"What happened to the 'Kaboom'?  
  There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering 'Kaboom'!"
	-- Marvin the Martian, "Hareway to the Stars"

Newsgroups: comp.windows.x.i386unix,comp.windows.x.motif,comp.os.linux.admin
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!sun4nl!sci.kun.nl!plm
From: p...@atcmp.nl (Peter Mutsaers)
Subject: Re: New Motif lib's for use with XFree 3.1 ?
In-Reply-To: adam@adam's message of 17 Oct 1994 19:42:30 GMT
Message-ID: <PLM.94Oct18135307@nijmegen3.atcmp.nl>
X-Attribution: PLM
Lines: 31
Sender: n...@sci.kun.nl (News owner)
Nntp-Posting-Host: atcmpg.atcmp.kun.nl
Organization: AT Computing
References: <JCBURT.94Oct13090957@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov> 
<37schf$f0e@freya.yggdrasil.com> <CxsM6x.A45@aib.com> 
<PLM.94Oct17094004@nijmegen3.atcmp.nl>
<37uk36$4a@freya.yggdrasil.com>
Distribution: inet
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 11:54:31 GMT

>> On 17 Oct 1994 19:42:30 GMT, adam@adam (Adam J. Richter) said:

  AJR> Peter Mutsaers <p...@atcmp.nl> wrote:
  >> To Adam Richter: nothing stops you to recompile XFree 3.1 yourself and
  >> try to keep the version number [...]

  AJR> 	I know we can do this, but we want a concensus within the
  AJR> Linux community to go one way or the other.  It would be better
  AJR> to switch to XFree86's incompatable libraries than have half of
  AJR> the Linux community using our R5-compatable binding's and half
  AJR> using XFree86's R5-incompatable bindings.

  AJR> 	I agree that if we're going to make a change, it might be
  AJR> better to go with ELF a month or two early than to switch
  AJR> twice.

Yes, at this point I think one should either use the R5-incompatible
bindings as they were distributed, or use ELF. I run now everthing in
/usr/local and /usr/X11R6 with ELF, and have (almost) no problems. I
know there are still some minor problems with ELF but I think the time
is almost there to switch. The only real problems that remain are with
g++ (libg++) and H.J. Lu is working on them.

This morning I made a couple of new ELF shared libraries (libvga,
libtiff, libjpeg, tcl, tk) and some binaries that use them. It is so
incredibly easy now.
-- 
Peter Mutsaers                  |  AT Computing bv,  P.O. Box 1428,
p...@atcmp.nl                    |  6501 BK  Nijmegen, The Netherlands
tel. work: +31 (0)80 527248     |
tel. home: +31 (0)3405 71093    |  "... En..., doet ie het al?"

			      USENET Archives


The materials and information included in this website may only be used
for purposes such as criticism, review, private study, scholarship, or 
research.


Electronic mail:			       WorldWideWeb:
   tech-insider@outlook.com			  http://tech-insider.org/